Carol Kelly

Is UN Constitutional, UN Christian and criminally illegal…MURDER. If a woman wants control of her body, there are many other ways. Abstinence being one, the morning after pill being another, self control. We should follow Christian teaching and invite God back into our country for we surely need his help. Simplification

Wonttakeitanymore

Amen!

Carol Kelly

Thank you!! Sincerely.

Marty 2020 Loc: Banana Republic of Kalifornia

You are correct! People don’t understand what they’re doing when they’re k*****g the baby. Innocent lives lost will happen, but don’t do it on purpose. Or else!

CarryOn

Totally agree with you, Carol! The Roe v. Wade decision was in 1973. Since that time we have seen great advances in methods of birth control--safer and much more effective methods than we had available to us in 1973. And available for free. I find it disturbing that the pro-choice crowd continues to fight so hard and so publicly at any mention of even the slightest restrictions on a******n. Disturbing and ghoulish.

Marty 2020 Loc: Banana Republic of Kalifornia

Yet right in character!
Disturbing and ghoulish as well as immoral and evil!

Big Bass

That IS the left.

CarryOn

Yes, that too!

Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

Nope.
A******n is NOT mentioned in the Constitution anyplace.
Neither is Christian Teaching.
God hasn’t been kept out of this country,
Only out of Politics.
And you should stop deciding what other people should be doing until you figure out that you have just lost one of your constitutional rights.
To Jesus.
Separation of church and state is fundamental.

Sonny Magoo Loc: Where pot pie is boiled in a kettle

You're right.
It's in the Declaration of Independence.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as endowed by our CREATOR (GOD).
AND...new human life begins at conception.
...also the very last paragraph of the US Constitution mentions JESUS.
WHAT? you say...Look it up!

Barbancon

Someone said “A******n is NOT mentioned in the Constitution anyplace.”

Correct. That is proof itself that the states never granted the power to regulate a******n to the Federal government. Congratulations! You just refuted Roe v Wade yourself.

Someone said “Separation of church and state is fundamental.” Wrong. If it were fundamental it would have been expressly enumerated in our founding documents.

The t***h is the United States of America was full of tax-funded state churches in the 18th and 19th centuries. The constitution only prohibits the Federal government from establishing churches. State churches are 100% constitutional. The founders believed you could not have freedom without the right to worship freely, an that included the right to state sponsored churches. The Roman Catholic Church was the state church of the state of Maryland, and the Congregational Church was the state church in much of New England. If you were an American instead of a l*****t (anti-American) you would know these things.

Carol Kelly

When my taxes discontinue paying for murder, I’ll shut my mouth. In the meantime, suffer with me. You are a Satan’s Disciple and dumb. When does your coven gather?

Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

That was a letter written to England.
Not for all mankind.

Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

Republicans love the Fetus , H**e the Child.

Declaration of Independence and the Christianity Myth

Does the Declaration of Independence Support Christianity?

Declaration of Independence
Greg V**e, VStock LLC/Creative RF / Getty Images

By Austin Cline
Updated on July 29, 2018
Many have argued against the separation of church and state by pointing to the Declaration of Independence. They believe that the text of this document supports the position that the United States was founded upon religious, if not Christian, principles, and therefore church and state must remain intertwined for this nation to continue properly.


A Secular Document
There are a couple of flaws in this argument. For one thing, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document for this nation. What this means is that it has no authority over our laws, our lawmakers, or ourselves. It cannot be cited as precedent or as being binding in a courtroom. The purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to make a moral case for dissolving the legal ties between the colonies and Great Britain; once that goal was achieved, the official role of the Declaration was finished.

That leaves open, however, the possibility that the document expressed the will of the same people who wrote the Constitution — thus, it provides knowledge about their intent as to what sort of government we should have. Leaving aside for the moment whether or not that intention should bind us, there are still serious flaws to consider. First, religion itself is never mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. This makes it difficult to argue that any particular religious principles should guide our current government.

Second, what little is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is only barely compatible with Christianity, the religion most people have in mind when making the above argument. The Declaration refers to “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence.” These are all terms used in the sort of deism which was common among many of those responsible for the American Revolution as well as the philosophers upon whom they relied for support. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was himself a deist who was opposed to many traditional Christian doctrines, in particular beliefs about the supernatural.


One common misuse of the Declaration of Independence is to argue that it states that our rights come from God and, therefore, there are no legitimate interpretations of the rights in the Constitution that would be contrary to God. The first problem is that the Declaration of Independence refers to a “Creator” and not the Christian “God” meant by people making the argument. The second problem is that the “rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” — none of which are “rights” discussed in the Constitution.


The Declaration of Independence is not a valid document for anything other than being a letter written to England.
Once delivered it was finished.
It is not a legal document for anything concerning our laws.
Here it is :

Declaration of Independence and the Christianity Myth
Does the Declaration of Independence Support Christianity?
Share
Flipboard
Email
Declaration of Independence
Greg V**e, VStock LLC/Creative RF / Getty Images

By Austin Cline
Updated on July 29, 2018
Many have argued against the separation of church and state by pointing to the Declaration of Independence. They believe that the text of this document supports the position that the United States was founded upon religious, if not Christian, principles, and therefore church and state must remain intertwined for this nation to continue properly.


A Secular Document
There are a couple of flaws in this argument. For one thing, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document for this nation. What this means is that it has no authority over our laws, our lawmakers, or ourselves. It cannot be cited as precedent or as being binding in a courtroom. The purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to make a moral case for dissolving the legal ties between the colonies and Great Britain; once that goal was achieved, the official role of the Declaration was finished.

That leaves open, however, the possibility that the document expressed the will of the same people who wrote the Constitution — thus, it provides knowledge about their intent as to what sort of government we should have. Leaving aside for the moment whether or not that intention should bind us, there are still serious flaws to consider. First, religion itself is never mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. This makes it difficult to argue that any particular religious principles should guide our current government.

Second, what little is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is only barely compatible with Christianity, the religion most people have in mind when making the above argument. The Declaration refers to “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence.” These are all terms used in the sort of deism which was common among many of those responsible for the American Revolution as well as the philosophers upon whom they relied for support. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was himself a deist who was opposed to many traditional Christian doctrines, in particular beliefs about the supernatural.


One common misuse of the Declaration of Independence is to argue that it states that our rights come from God and, therefore, there are no legitimate interpretations of the rights in the Constitution that would be contrary to God. The first problem is that the Declaration of Independence refers to a “Creator” and not the Christian “God” meant by people making the argument. The second problem is that the “rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” — none of which are “rights” discussed in the Constitution.

Finally, the Declaration of Independence also makes it clear that governments created by humanity derive their powers from the consent of the governed, not from any gods. This is why the Constitution does not make any mention of any gods. There is no reason to think that there is anything illegitimate about an interpretation of any of the rights outlined in the Constitution merely because it runs contrary to what some people think that their conception of a god would want.

What this all means is that arguments against the separation of church and state which rely upon the language of the Declaration of Independence fail. First, the document in question has no legal authority with which one could make a legal case. Second, the sentiments expressed therein do not support the principle that government should be guided either by any specific religion (like Christianity) or by religion “in general” (as if such a thing even existed).

Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

It isn’t murder until it’s a person.

Declaration of Independence and the Christianity Myth
Does the Declaration of Independence Support Christianity?

Declaration of Independence
Greg V**e, VStock LLC/Creative RF / Getty Images

By Austin Cline
Updated on July 29, 2018
Many have argued against the separation of church and state by pointing to the Declaration of Independence. They believe that the text of this document supports the position that the United States was founded upon religious, if not Christian, principles, and therefore church and state must remain intertwined for this nation to continue properly.


A Secular Document
There are a couple of flaws in this argument. For one thing, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document for this nation. What this means is that it has no authority over our laws, our lawmakers, or ourselves. It cannot be cited as precedent or as being binding in a courtroom. The purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to make a moral case for dissolving the legal ties between the colonies and Great Britain; once that goal was achieved, the official role of the Declaration was finished.

That leaves open, however, the possibility that the document expressed the will of the same people who wrote the Constitution — thus, it provides knowledge about their intent as to what sort of government we should have. Leaving aside for the moment whether or not that intention should bind us, there are still serious flaws to consider. First, religion itself is never mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. This makes it difficult to argue that any particular religious principles should guide our current government.

Second, what little is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is only barely compatible with Christianity, the religion most people have in mind when making the above argument. The Declaration refers to “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence.” These are all terms used in the sort of deism which was common among many of those responsible for the American Revolution as well as the philosophers upon whom they relied for support. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was himself a deist who was opposed to many traditional Christian doctrines, in particular beliefs about the supernatural.


One common misuse of the Declaration of Independence is to argue that it states that our rights come from God and, therefore, there are no legitimate interpretations of the rights in the Constitution that would be contrary to God. The first problem is that the Declaration of Independence refers to a “Creator” and not the Christian “God” meant by people making the argument. The second problem is that the “rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” — none of which are “rights” discussed in the Constitution.

Finally, the Declaration of Independence also makes it clear that governments created by humanity derive their powers from the consent of the governed, not from any gods. This is why the Constitution does not make any mention of any gods. There is no reason to think that there is anything illegitimate about an interpretation of any of the rights outlined in the Constitution merely because it runs contrary to what some people think that their conception of a god would want.

What this all means is that arguments against the separation of church and state which rely upon the language of the Declaration of Independence fail. First, the document in question has no legal authority with which one could make a legal case. Second, the sentiments expressed therein do not support the principle that government should be guided either by any specific religion (like Christianity) or by religion “in general” (as if such a thing even existed).

** One common misuse of the Declaration of Independence is to argue that it states that our rights come from God and, therefore, there are no legitimate interpretations of the rights in the Constitution that would be contrary to God**